Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Term:

Settings

Beginner Intermediate Advanced No DefinitionsDefinition Life:

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Are surface temperature records reliable?

What the science says...

The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites, and by natural thermometers.

Climate Myth...

Temp record is unreliable

"We found [U.S. weather] stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations – nearly 9 of every 10 – fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source." (Watts 2009)

Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.

However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.

It's also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend — and hence Climate Change — are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.

For example, a study by Anderson et al. (2012) created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link to global surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents). The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two:

Temperature reconstruction based on natural physical and biological measurements (Paleo, solid) and the instrumental temperature record (MLOST, dashed) relative to 1901-2000. The range of the paleo trends index values is coincidentally nearly the same as the GST although the quantities are different (index values versus temperature anomalies °C).

Confidence in climate science depends on the correlation of many sets of these data from many different sources in order to produce conclusive evidence of a global trend.

Way to go, by the way. Nothing better than getting your hands dirty with the real data. Just be sure to read up the metadata and also data processing, especially homogenising. Any long term record will have changed thermometers, screens, maybe location, reading time, many many times. Its not a trivial job doing those corrections. Homogenised records can be got from GHCN sources.

At the suggestion of the moderator I will take an OT discussion from another post to here. referencing a comment in another thread I have a question related to the number of weather stations related to a given area. Why is it ok to have 8 data points (i.e. temperature stations) to represent a global region composed of a circle with a 1,500 km radius (which is what the GISS data does for the north pole area)? If you look at the dark red area on the picture below and then click on the center of that dark red region on the GISS site you'll only find 8 sites that have continuous measurements over the past several decades (continuous through 2011).

and here is a link to a screen capture showing the list of stations that are less than 1,500 km from the point I clicked.

Without knowing exactly where you clicked it is hard to know how to answer but certainly there are issues such as data sparsity in the north. That being said UAH uses polar interpolation also for the region 82.5-90 N. As i've pointed out before, NCEP reanalysis and ECMWF reanalysis which include satellite, weather balloon and all available station data support GISS's interpretation of the Arctic. As a polar researcher myself we have a lot of respect particularly for the quality of the ECMWF data and feel it is an accurate portrayal of Arctic trends.

That's because the raw data is restricted by intergovernment agreements ( - Musings about conspiracy theories snipped- ) to three data centres. He makes the clear the debate is not over and that mean temperatures have no physical meaning- its a descriptor of the system.

Response:

[DB] Please refrain from baseless speculations. And you are simply incorrect on the data being restricted to 3 data centers. In the vast majority of cases, the data is available upon request from producing nations.

scaddenp I did look at your links- first one is faulty.
The second is a bunch of lame excuses

Response: [DB] Both links work quite well. If you have issues with discussing climate science, using the scientific method with the intended goal of gaining greater understanding of the science, then perhaps Skeptical Science is not the best place for you.

I think there may be some confusion about what links are being referred to. Not the data links to chris shaker.

To cloa513, moderator pointed to useful links in response to post here

I pointed to other useful data (eg Hansen agreeing that mean global temperature isnt useful so dont us it) and actual methodology in posts 143 and 144. Both work.

In essence, the arguments about mean global temperature are a strawman. The arguments against it are quite valid but the methodology being rebutted is not the methodology used for examining global temperature trends. The actual methodology (average anomaly) is pointed to by link and the papers that support it reveal decades of testing of the method validity. What cloa513 hasnt done is presented a contrary argument against this.

Cloa513 - a debate of substance would include a statement about what you thought was excuses and particularly why you thought it was lame.

The question really at hand is whether the globe is warming or not. You seem to contending that we dont know about method is flawed (but you havent examined the real method) plus some speculative FUD. You are also noting that other evidence of warming is provided by satellites tropospheric measurement (which is independent of ground measurement), sealevel rise and glacial retreat. If you are of one opinion now, you need to ask yourself what data would make you change you mind.

The US Government site provides no data or garbage numbers like 4000 lots of -1936. Someone should complain about their garbage.
Some useful data in the rest.
CISL- its none of your business or your parent organisation- who I am nor should you restrict data access in any way. Needing the request data is a scientific disgrace- its all our tax dollars.

Well a great many people have managed to use this data. eg look at this and you will guides to understanding the odd numbers and how to process if you look.

What exactly were you trying to download from CISL? (their data, their rules - oil companies certainly cant download government data here without telling us who they are).

While its great that you are looking at the data, you also should satisfy yourself about the methodology. (ie neither GISS, Hadcrut, nor noaa are trying to calculate a global mean temperature and that the anomaly data really is stable and spatially highly correlated).

The station list you present looks like it is from a point in the northern Norwegian Sea. Don't forget this map is for land & ocean index, not just land. the predominant data for that region would be ocean SST data. GISTEMP uses ocean data in preference to land data when the land area is very small - look at the Chatham Islands in the South Pacific as a good example of this. Do runs for Land only, Ocean only and Land & Ocean. Look at the tabulated data for each run. The land data isn't used at all in the combined series.

Also the use of data out to 1200 km is part of the standard algorithm for GISTEMP. However temps frpm 1200 k's out only have a small weighting at the centre.

The basis for this 1200 range is the original research behind GISTEMP showing strong correlation between anomaly changes out to 1200 kms.

Currently I am working on a post on another subject. Following that I plan a series of posts on surface temperature measurement that I hope will clarify some of these things.

"In Summary
Despite potential biases in the data, methods of analysis can be used to reduce bias effects well enough to enable us to measure long-term Earth temperature changes. Data integrity is adequate. Based on our initial work at Berkeley Earth, I believe that some of the most worrisome biases are less of a problem than I had previously thought."

For those who would still ignore our two most famous french deniers, here is the letter, from climate scientists references to instances of the French scientific research, that details their fallacy arguments : a taste of skepticalscience method with french sauce.

So here are the perfect rebuttals lists to the Allègre's book and the Courtillot's conference.

I do not wish to engage in an esoteric argument over the reliability of data sets that support the abstraction called global mean temperature.

{ snip - Several paragraphs of esoteric argument over the ... removed, as per your wish. }

As a skeptic I do not wish to engage in arguments over just how to interpret the chicken guts but to ask a more fundamental question: Prove that it exists and that you can measure it.

{ snip - several paragraphs of arguments over chicken guts removed as per your wish }

This is very powerful stuff.

{snip }

Response: [muoncounter] Read the Comments Policy and refrain from quasi-religious ranting. Form an argument based on science and evidence and we'll have something to discuss. Off-topic comments are deleted.

Bruce Frykman @169, it is very plain that like the mean number of children per family, mean global surface temperature is a statistical concept. That does not mean it conveys no useful information, or no physically significant information. If the mean number of children per family in the US rises from 2.3 to 2.4, then all else being equal we can predict both that the US population will grow, and that the ratio of elderly to younger people will reduce, if the pattern persists. The increase in population is a real, physical effect even if we are certain that there is no household in the US containing 0.4 of a child.

In like manner, if the mean surface temperature of the Earth increases, we can confidently predict that there will be a reduce mass of water stored as snow and/or ice; and that there will be an increase in the mass of water vapour in the atmosphere. Those are real physical effects, and that their prediction is based on change in a statistical measure makes no difference to the real physical consequences of that change.

So, at the very best, your position has the same intellectual poverty as that of a person arguing that there cannot be a mean number of children in a family because there is no such thing as 0.4 of a child.

In fact, your position is substantially worse. Climate scientists make predictions by taking a variety of well evidenced physical laws, taking data of actual humidities, precipitations, atmospheric temperatures and compositions, and temperatures at particular locations, and determining the consequences of that set of laws with those initial conditions. Some of the consequences are predicted values for statistical measures. Those values can be compared with values for the statistical measures determined by observation, to either refute or confirm the predictions. One of those statistical measures is the mean global surface temperature - and the agreement between the value determined by measurement and that determined by theory is confirmation of the theory.

So your argument is not only wrong headed, showing a fundamentally flawed understanding of the nature of statistical measures - but it is simply obscurantist. It has all the intellectual merit of a head in the sand.

The sad thing is that by dressing your obscurantism and ignorance up in a semi-plausible rhetoric you may well fool some people. Just not those who think.

Bruce, see comment #144. Hansen agrees with you about global mean temperature. That's why they dont track temperature trends that way. Read up and how it is actually done and the evidence supporting the methodology. You are attacking a strawman.

This change has a very strange effect. The NCDC uses the period of 1901-2000 as reference. With the "correction" (if one really will call it this way) the anomalies from beginning of the reference (1901) until the mid 50th are lowered while all other following values rised. Of course, not in significant ranges. But having this three or four times happened we will see differences to previous calculations in a significant range of approx. 0.1K.

So the question arises again: are the data reliable?

Response:

[DB] Hey, progress happens. You're not against improvements to increase accuracy, right? After all, insinuations of something nefarious are beneath us...especially when the details of the change are made transparent, as you note.

I made it by myself with a simple Excess table which compares the GHCN-M version 2 with the version 3 regarding the yearly anomalies. And it looks ... strange.

Response:

[DB] This is a science-based website. Merely attaching an "odd" or "strange" appellation/connotation to something adds nothing positive to the dialogue. If you have constructive criticism of the changes you reference you will need to perform a more robust analysis to back up your "insinuations" (which veer into Comment Policy violation status...).

What I did is just to download the data of version 2 and of version 3, copy them in an Excel sheet (sorry for misspelling above), compared them and made a graphical output. As scientific as a simple comparison can be.
I had used the original (NCDC) data to show that there is an odd behaviour when making the recent update of data and methods.
OK, I should have linked these data in the comments before. Sorry for that.

The summary of the changes that you mentioned does not explain the behavior of the corrections at all. It is not apparent why the first half of the last century should have been overestimated while the rest until now should have been underestimated. Even if one would follow the statements, the behavior in general or the reason are quite unclear.
This, of course, is odd and it really creates doubts. It is nearly impossible for an outstanding to follow these procedures, even if there are summaries.
But this would be an off-topic question about scientific transparency.

If you look on top and read the question of this topic, my answer would be (and i've tried to show it with actual data) "there are doubts, indeed".
But I wonder how you can accuse me to make "insinuations" although the data speak a very clear tongue.

Response: [e] Please review the advanced version of this post. The raw data has been analyzed and plotted several different ways by several different organizations and citizen scientists. The result is always the same.
Implying wrongdoing simply because you do not understand one of these reconstructions is not a valid scientific argument and is a violation of this site's comment policy.

JoeRG wrote: "It is not apparent why the first half of the last century should have been overestimated while the rest until now should have been underestimated."

You do realize that the 'change' in the trendline is 0.0002 C per year, right?

If you find that to "really create doubts" it doesn't seem like this has anything to do with logic or reality. The variation between the old and new results is a tiny fraction of the stated margin of error and leaves these anomalies still in close agreement with the GISS, NASA, UAH, RSS, and other data sets.

Those changes, besides being very small, do not increase the appearance of global warming in the data set. You have to pay attention to the timing. The diffs in temp anomalies are similar for the most important part of the record from 1950 and on, and the increase in late data is matched by an increase in very early data.

If you want to do a proper comparison that prvides the correct context, you should compare the NCDC records on the same graph before and after the corrections. You should also calculate the temp change since the 70s in the two data sets - that's the period when we think GHG forcing has become dominant.

When I do the latter in excel, very quickly. I get a 0.164C/decade in the first and 0.166/decade in the second. Those are within 1% of each other and certainly within the error in the data. It would take not just 10, but 100 such revisions (all in the same direction) to produce anything near the temp trend apparent in the record.

giniajim @177, yes! Go to each separate national meteorological agency that supplied the data to either the Hadley Center/CRU or NOAA and purchase the data of each such agency, or arrange access to the data on a research basis. That is what has been done by each of the major global temperature indices, and each is bound by contract to not release the individual data, which remains the commercial property of the particular national meteorological agency that supplied it.

You may want to note, however, that every independent attempt to determine the mean global temperature, whether based on thermometer or satellite data, has come up with effectively the same trend, including Muller's BEST project, and most recently (for US data only) Anthony Watt's team. The chance of finding significant error, therefore, seems remote.

#178 You are omitting important finding in the Watt's et al. paper, poor station siting. The opposite-signed differences of maximum and minimum temperature trends are similar in magnitude, so that the overall mean temperature trends are nearly identical across site classifications (dumb luck?). The best-sited stations show no century-scale trend in diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states.

Time-of-observation corrected minimum temperature measurements at poorly sited stations have grown increasingly warm, compared to the best sited stations (sounds like possible contamination from urbanization). The poorly sited stations show an average temperature bias of +0.3 C, after taking into account the differing geographical distribution of stations. The authors recommend comprehensive siting studies be extended to the global historical climate network temperature data.

John Nielsen-Gammon (i.e. one of the authors of Fall et al - not Watts et al, unfortunately for those who admire the blog scientist so much) had this to say on his website, comparing Fall et al to Menne et al :

Menne et al - We find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting.

"Neither do we, but important questions remain regarding the effect of the adjustments and the different effects of siting and instruments that may bear on the CONUS average temperature trends."

Compare that with the following :

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts

If an increased greenhouse effect is causing global warming, we should see certain patterns in the warming. For example, the planet should warm faster at night than during the day. This is indeed being observed (Braganza 2004, Alexander 2006).

Unfortunately what is observed, is just the opposite. That is, the decreasing trend in diurnal temperature range is entirely due to poor station siting, which means it is a local thing, not a global one.

If global warming is caused by an increased greenhouse effect, then the planet should warm faster at night than during the day.
The planet is not warming faster at night than during the day.Therefore global warming is not caused by an increased greenhouse effect.

Zhou et al. (2010):"Observations show that the surface diurnal temperature range (DTR) has decreased since 1950s over most global land areas due to a smaller warming in maximum temperatures (Tmax) than in minimum temperatures (Tmin). This paper analyzes the trends and variability in Tmax, Tmin, and DTR over land in observations and 48 simulations from 12 global coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models for the later half of the 20th century. It uses the modeled changes in surface downward solar and longwave radiation to interpret the modeled temperature changes. When anthropogenic and natural forcings are included, the models generally reproduce observed major features of the warming of Tmax and Tmin and the reduction of DTR. As expected the greenhouse gases enhanced surface downward longwave radiation (DLW) explains most of the warming of Tmax and Tmin while decreased surface downward shortwave radiation (DSW) due to increasing aerosols and water vapor contributes most to the decreases in DTR in the models. When only natural forcings are used, none of the observed trends are simulated. The simulated DTR decreases are much smaller than the observed (mainly due to the small simulated Tmin trend) but still outside the range of natural internal variability estimated from the models."

As for "There is no escape route." Indeed, Watts has been hung by his own petard. And Fall et al. (2010) is not without its problems.

I will concede that DTR is perhaps not the best fingerprint for AGW, just because it is affected by so many factors other than GHGs, and there are clearly problems measuring it. The changes in the seasonal patterns (winter warming faster than summer) is a robust fingerprint.

Looks like SkS will have to do a post to refute the chatter in denier circles about the Fall et al. paper.

#184Albatross at 03:11 AM on 27 May, 2011Zhou et al. (2010):
"Observations show that the surface diurnal temperature range (DTR) has decreased since 1950s over most global land areas due to a smaller warming in maximum temperatures (Tmax) than in minimum temperatures (Tmin).

OK. This paper does not do any DTR data analisys of its own, it uses Vose 2005 (Maximum and minimum temperature trends for the globe: An update through 2004), which says:

"a widespread decrease in the DTR was only evident from 1950-1980."

Indeed.

And that with no correction for station quality whatsoever.

Therefore we know warming trend in the data at least since 1980 is not caused "by an increased greenhouse effect", but something else. That fingerprint thing should really be retracted.

Berényi - The original contention by Watts was that the long term mean global temperature was not rising, and the indication was an artifact of distorted data. Are you claiming that this is correct? Watt's data shows that it isn't.

The issues with day/night temperature range are quite different - you might profitably look at Braganza et al 2004, who note that observed diurnal temperature range (DTR) changes are actually much larger than predicted by models, most likely because of insufficient accounting for temperature driven cloud increases in those models.

From that paper:

"Observed DTR over land shows a large negative trend of 0.4C over the last 50 years that is very unlikely to have occurred due to internal variability. This trend is due to larger increases in minimum temperatures (0.9C) than maximum temperatures (0.6C) over the same period."

Your call to "retract" the fingerprint statement is quite premature.

But all that aside - Watt's initial accusations did not pan out, and shifting to the DTR is indeed a shifting of the goalposts.

"Therefore we know warming trend in the data at least since 1980 is not caused "by an increased greenhouse effect", but something else."

Is that a joke? Because one 'fingerprint' isn't obvious in one study over one period, we can ignore all other evidence and physics and blame the warming on some other unknown cause? All I can say is wow.

I mean seriously, think about what you're saying. Even ignoring all the other mounds of evidence for anthropogenic warming, you're admitting the warming from 1950-1980 was largely anthropogenic, yet even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to grow rapidly since 1980, somehow it's no longer causing warming? Is that really what you're arguing? That the laws of physics were different in 1950-1980 than 1980-2011?

#188dana1981 at 04:58 AM on 27 May, 2011you're admitting the warming from 1950-1980 was largely anthropogenic, yet even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to grow rapidly since 1980, somehow it's no longer causing warming?

Are you confabulating? A have never admitted such a thing. Read carefully: warming trend in the data at least since 1980 is not caused "by an increased greenhouse effect", but something else. How can you read it as "the warming from 1950-1980 was largely anthropogenic" is beyond me.

On top of that according to GISS there was hardly any warming between 1950 and 1980. Are you trying to say no-warming is also anthropogenic?

BP @ 189--the implication of this statement: 'warming trend in the data at least since 1980 is not caused "by an increased greenhouse effect", but something else.' is clearly that prior to 1980, the warming was due to an increased greenhouse effect. You provide some wiggle room "at least since", but it's a fairly weak caveat.

I see. You say the proposition "If global warming is caused by an increased greenhouse effect, then the planet should warm faster at night than during the day" is a false one. That's certainly a possibility.

Because if A => B is false, the truth-value assigned to B should also be false. That false proposition reads "The planet is warming faster at night than during the day."

In other words, you are claiming the temperature record is unreliable in this respect, which is exactly what Fall 2011 says.

Or, alternately, you can insist the temperature record is reliable, but the fast increasing DTR is inconsistent with model predictions. In that case computational climate models (which, as you claim, indicate much smaller changes) are falsified.

It certainly is entertaining to watch those in denial about AGW and certain contrarians pounce on this finding by Fall et al. (2011) concerning the DTR over the US.

John Nielsen-Gammon, one of the authors of Fall et al. agrees with the findings in Zhou et al. (2010). Also, as has been noted elsewhere, the findings by Fall et al. bring the model projections concerning DTR into closer alignment with observations, at least for the contiguous USA.

The obfuscators should also look carefully at the Figures in Zhou et al. For example, Figs. 2 and 3 show that the observed and modeled decrease in DTR was not statistically significant over large portions of the contiguous US between 1950 and 1999.

But step back and see what was observed and modeled for the globe, you now anthropogenic global warming. Zhou et al. say,

"Evidently the ALL [natural and anthro forcing]simulations reproduce the global signal much better than the regional variations."

What is critical to note is that without including anthro GHGs, the model projections in Zhou et al. (2010) were unable to produce the observed trends and patterns in both mean temperature and DTR (see their Fig. 5).

A caveat though, Zhou et al. also conclude that:"The model simulated warming in Tmax and Tmin and the general decrease in DTR may reflect large-scale effects of enhanced global GHGs and direct effects of aerosols. The strong and persistent increase in DLW, which mainly reflects GHGs effects of a warmer and wetter atmosphere and to some extent of a warmer surface, is the dominant global forcing in explaining the simulated warming of Tmax and Tmin from 1950 to 1999, while its effect on DTR is very small. Decreases in DSW due to enhanced aerosols and PRW contribute most to the simulated decreases in DTR."

"In general, the magnitude of the downward trend of DTR and the warming trend of Tmin decreases with increasing precipitation amount, cloud cover, and LAI, i.e., with stronger DTR decreasing trends over drier regions. Such spatial dependence of Tmin and DTR trends on the climatological precipitation possibly reflects large-scale effects of increased global greenhouse gases and aerosols (and associated changes in cloudiness, soil moisture, and water vapor) during the later half of the twentieth century."

So the decrease in DTR from elevated GHGs is (and should be) greatest where the signal is not swamped/muted by moisture-- that is in should be greatest in Arid and semi-arid areas.

An interesting question is how changing atmospheric moisture, rainfall and cloud in response to AGW are affecting DTR. This is another reason why the seasonal fingerprint (winters warming faster than summers) is a more robust fingerprint.

But it would be a huge mistake for the contrarians and those in denial to claim that issues with the DTR is a silver bullet that refutes the theory of AGW, or that is demonstrates that warming in the satellite era is not attributable to enhanced GHGs, especially if they choose to ignore/neglect the numerous other fingerprints in the process.

One bizzare aspect of Berényi Péter's campaign to retract the fingerprints article is that it assumes that only one effect can be influencing the climate at any one time. Specifically, increasing GHG concentrations and increasing aerosol load will both decrease the Diurnal Temperature Range, although the former warms the globe while the latter cools it. In contrast decreasing GHG concentrations and decreasing aerosol load will increase DTR, although the former cools the globe and the later warms it. As it happens, over the continental US, from the 1950s to 1980, both GHG concentrations and aerosol load were increasing, generating a significant reduction in DTR, but since the early 1980's, GHG concentrations have been increasing but aerosol load has been decreasing. Absent the effect of GHG, we would expect an increase in DTR over that period. That we do not see it is therefore evidence of GHG warming (although not the strongest evidence).

Even more bizzare, BP seems to think that the continental US is the Earth. If we check the data for Australia, which has a similar area to the continental US, we find a clear reduction in DTR with a trend of -0.05 degrees C per decade. The annual fluctuations are, of course, very large, and dominated by variations in humidity.

Australia is also not the Earth, but the clear difference shows it is foolish to draw a conclusion about global trends from a study of 1.8% of the world's surface area.

#192Albatross at 06:26 AM on 27 May, 2011What is critical to note is that without including anthro GHGs, the model projections in Zhou et al. (2010) were unable to produce the observed trends and patterns in both mean temperature and DTR

What is critical to note is that without including equants, the model projections in Ptolemy (~150) were unable to produce the observed planetary orbits

So what? Does that make equants real? Of course if you suppose the model is basically correct, you can prove (using observations) the equant can't be located at the center of the deferent circle (and neither one is colocated with the center of the Earth). Same logic.

#195Tom Curtis at 07:56 AM on 27 May, 2011Even more bizzare, BP seems to think that the continental US is the Earth. If we check the data for Australia, which has a similar area to the continental US, we find a clear reduction in DTR with a trend of -0.05 degrees C per decade.

No, I do not think that, I am not American. But as far as I know the SurfaceStations project is not a global one yet, specifically it is not extended to the surface stations of Australia. Therefore you can not tell us how much of the Australian trend is due to poor siting and how much of it is genuine.

The aerosol card is also a convenient joker, for global atmospheric aerosol concentrations are not measured properly (and never were).

To be honest I don't usually pay a lot of attention to BP's comments (no offense intended - he just tends not to comment on posts I monitor the most). But I saw this comment and it just floored me. The lack of logic is staggering.

In BP land, the lack of DTR trend from 1980-Present means the warming wasn't caused by GHGs. But the presence of a DTR trend from 1950-1980 somehow doesn't mean the warming during that period was caused by GHGs. WTF??

Of course as Tom Curtis notes in #195, DTR is influenced by other factors besides just GHGs (not to mention the world being larger than the USA), so concluding that the warming wasn't anthropogenic just because the DTR trend isn't evident during that period is, well, it's not very wise. Especially since it requires ignoring all other anthropogenic fingerprints, not to mention that pesky...what's the word I'm looking for? Oh yeah, physics! Sorry BP, but you really need to think about what you're arguing here. It's patently absurd.

And BP @196, to fill the vacuity of his argument elects to argue a strawman about equants. Did you miss the bolded text from Zhou et al. (2009) and Zhou et al. (2010).

You are making a fool of yourself BP. I remind you again that John Nielsen-Gammon, an author of Fall et al., agrees with Zhou et al. (2010). Unlike you,these guys are experts in this field and do in fact know better. Also, please read my post @192 very carefully, and actually look at the Figs. 2 and 3 in Zhou et al. (2010), better yet read the paper.

"No, I do not think that, I am not American."
But apparently you do when you mistakenly think that certain data from the US support your preconceived ideas and/or beliefs.

Does your silence indicate that you implicitly agree that you fabricated the phrase "but the fast increasing DTR"? Please substantiate your claim or admit that you made it up.